Microsoft has extended the final OEM and reseller delivery date for the Windows XP from January 31, 2009 to May 30, 2009. The cut off date for PC makers to obtain licenses for the software was January 31, 2009. Still, vendors have to place their orders before the official cutoff date of January 31, but they dont have to take delivery until May. Microsoft granted the reprieve largely because of customer's preference for XP.Microsoft also recently extended the Vista "downgrade" deadline for OEMs to July 31 and netbooks and low-cost laptops will be able to run XP until at least June 2010, so chances are you'll be able to get XP until Windows 7 ships.
PC makers largely stopped selling XP installed on desktops and laptops in late 2007, but they are available to customers who order online or have a business account with OEMs such as Dell or Hewlett-Packard. Recently, Dell offered customers, the option to get Windows XP instead of Vista on many models.
If you are an XP lover and have bought a Vista system, you have two choices to get XP:
- To buy an XP license before June 30 and install it over Vista, and
- To "downgrade" to XP Professional using an XP Professional install disc or a "downgrade" XP Pro install disc supplied by the PC maker
One word: Netbook
Two words: Virtual Desktop
Three words: Stem Marketshare Loss
Ok, I was rushed a bit in this one-upmanship.
EDIT: snapshot of Nov. 2008, Windows 89.62%
and Dec. 2006, Windows 93.86%
Actualy, more people use XP right now than use Vista, so I'd have to say that XP is actually less dead than Vista is.
Besides, all Windows 7 is going to be is like Vista 2.0. Windows 8 will be like Vista 3.0, and perhaps after that we'll see Microsoft wake up and smell the Linux. Hey, I can dream, can't I? :|
With computer peripheral prices getting cheaper day by day, I don't see why Netbooks should not be running on Vista, probably that would happen very soon.
Netbooks were really a separate market. However, like you and others are pointing out (even if only indirectly) netbooks are becoming nothing more than small low-powered laptops.
Heck even in the Neowin forums, there are people asking about which netbook would be best for running Photoshop.
These "high powered" netbooks are becoming nothing more than "low powered" laptops.
Vista isn't dead whatsoever, clown.
I don't think I need to restate the old "It's my computer and I know how to use it" comments, you already know them
Vista's UAC is atrocious. There are much more elegant and secure ways of controlling, restricting and/or limiting unauthorized access, and you don't have to treat people like children to do it. Trouble is, it's impossible for Microsoft to design an OS that's customized for each enterprise right out of the box, so they sunk to the lowest common denominator and decided that, by default, Vista restricts everything you do, even if you are just moving a file. And so we have the god dam UAC (THE most annoying feature of any MS product every made, IMHO. Clippy was a minor annoyance by comparison).
You want a secure OS? Then secure your OS. Don't just rely on what's built into Vista.
You want a secure OS? Then secure your OS. Don't just rely on what's built into Vista.
Use Vista for more than 5 minutes and you'll see it's better than XP (with the exception of the networking screens... euck.)
Me, every time I have to work on a PC with Vista, it take me less than 5 minutes to remind me how much better XP is. If you really like Vista better, it is because you are not using it, you're just looking at it. LOL
Erm, no. I like Vista better because it does lots of things better than XP does.
Like what ?
I don't think I need to restate the old "It's my computer and I know how to use it" comments, you already know them
Lol, here we go again. This is such a stupid argument. Vista only does this when you do something that requires elevated privileges. Quite honestly, there's nothing you should need to do that requires so many UAC prompts. And in the extremely unlikely event you do, it takes half a second to click "Continue", so you and the other UAC/Vista whiners just need to grow a set and shut the hell up.
I'll give Vista it's credit : On other systems, it wins. Marginally.
I've found that in my (admittedly fairly powerful) machine running Quad-Core and 4GB of RAM that Vista is actually faster than XP due to services like SuperFetch, which loads Firefox, Visual Studio and others straight into RAM for me when I boot up. This means that when I click on the icon for any of these pre-loaded applications, the application loads instantaneously.
This however doesn't translate to lesser powerful rigs simply for the fact that they don't have the resources to take advantage of such features.
What?
Superfetch only boosts app launch speed on LOW memory systems, and only then on systems using Readyboost and a Readyboost-ready USB flash drive. It doesn't do much more than the XP prefetch does except it's designed and engenered to support Readyboost.
How do I know this? I've got 6 GB on this machine and I'm dual-booting XP and Vista, that's how. Firefox is certainly not noticeably faster on it's first-after-boot launch under Vista than it is under XP.
Oh, and unless you've equipped your machine with an all-SSDs set of drives, nothing but lightweight apps like uTorrent or Notepad is going to launch "instantaneously." Your claim to the contrary is just ridiculous.
Superfetch only boosts app launch speed on LOW memory systems, and only then on systems using Readyboost and a Readyboost-ready USB flash drive. It doesn't do much more than the XP prefetch does except it's designed and engenered to support Readyboost.
How do I know this? I've got 6 GB on this machine and I'm dual-booting XP and Vista, that's how. Firefox is certainly not noticeably faster on it's first-after-boot launch under Vista than it is under XP.
Oh, and unless you've equipped your machine with an all-SSDs set of drives, nothing but lightweight apps like uTorrent or Notepad is going to launch "instantaneously." Your claim to the contrary is just ridiculous.
Rubbish. Superfetch in Vista does EXACTLY what Majesticmerc said it does. It basically learns what programs you like to run and when, and then caches those programs to memory so they load more quickly when you need them. It isn't just for "LOW memory systems" as you put it, in fact the more memory you have, the more it can pre-load for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperFetch#SuperFetch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperFetch#SuperFetch
Superfetch only boosts app launch speed on LOW memory systems, and only then on systems using Readyboost and a Readyboost-ready USB flash drive. It doesn't do much more than the XP prefetch does except it's designed and engenered to support Readyboost.
How do I know this? I've got 6 GB on this machine and I'm dual-booting XP and Vista, that's how. Firefox is certainly not noticeably faster on it's first-after-boot launch under Vista than it is under XP.
Oh, and unless you've equipped your machine with an all-SSDs set of drives, nothing but lightweight apps like uTorrent or Notepad is going to launch "instantaneously." Your claim to the contrary is just ridiculous.
That's ReadyBoost you're describing. Think before you strike.
MS know there's a silly demand for XP over Vista so from a strictly profit-oriented view, why not cash in?
Netbooks
Nobody would've said that back in 2001, back then XP was the shizzit, it was new, it was exciting, it was how Vista is today, how Windows 7 will be tomorrow.
It was how Vista should have been today, and hopefully Windows 7 will be tomorrow.
XP was very crapy on it release
it was only pretty good after SP2 (2004)
It was but less than Vista. In case you didn't know that, software are release even if they still have known bug. Usually it is a matter of "it's stable enough, we release it and we keep working on fixing it".
XP when release still had 175,000 known bugs (most of them minor). Vista when release had 288,000 known bugs (most of them minors).
Did you know that 99% of facts are made up in a instant?
SOURCES.
Vista is a way better operating system than XP. In all its senses. It is a great improvement.
and (mark could source me on this) UAC is the SAME thing as when you have to do a operation that requires root access.
SOURCES.
Actually those numbers were from Microsoft themselves. Reseach it on our own.
Last edited by Captain555 on 24 Dec 2008 - 15:39
XP when release still had 175,000 known bugs (most of them minor). Vista when release had 288,000 known bugs (most of them minors).
What do you expect? XP was a minor release over 2000 at its core (NT 5.0 to NT 5.1), hence there would be less issues with driver compatibility, application support, etc, although that didn't stop the fact that XP was in 2001 what people in 2007 perceived Vista to be...a slow, bloated, ugly OS that provided no real reason to upgrade. Vista was a major release and of course would have new problems as the NT 6.0 kernel was somewhat of a radical departure from standard Windows design, especially under the hood. I didn't have too many issues with Vista from day 1, and now it works better than ever, much better than XP could ever hope to.
Exactly, I installed the final build of Windows 2000 back in late 1999 when it was RTM. For its first 6-12 months Windows 2000 had horrible compatibility, poorer than Vista on its first year! What made matters worse is that OEMs that primarily targeted consumers would often say "Windows 2000 is a business OS and we have no plans to support it." Windows 2000 was a pretty stable OS as long as you didn't need to connect it to anything fancy like network cards, GPUs or consumer grade printers (not joking), and forget about webcams, scanners or specialized keyboard, mice and joysticks those things just didn’t work whatsoever. By 2001 Win2000 had pretty good hardware support but many newly released games still could not run on it. Late 2001 in comes Windows XP which is NT 5.1 and for the most part supports all existing Win2000 drivers that manufactures have spent the last 2 years working on. For gamers there was still about a year delay before WinXP was the preferred platform for gaming—more for performance reasons than compatibility.
Now compare Vista to Windows 2000. Vista had many of the same issues compatibility issues but from my first hand experience as an early adopter of both Vista was not as bad. Despite the fact that MS is trying to divorce Windows 7 from Vista and call it a brand new major release it is NT 6.1 (although they will call it NT 7.0 for marketing reasons) and will support the same driver model as Vista. Despite what the naysayers may tell you, making Windows 7 similar to Vista is not a bad thing, it means more compatibility (because let’s face it, by now virtually all modern hardware works fine with Vista) and faster adoption.
In a nutshell Windows 7 will be to Vista what XP was to Windows 2000. The biggest difference is that Windows 2000 was never marketed as a consumer OS it never got the bad press Vista has. Those few people who did run Win2000 on a home system where typically more technically sophisticated than your average user, and even then running Win2000 at home didn’t really become popular until after the release of WinME (which was right at a year after Windows 2000’s RTM).
While that is just my personal opinion, I have friends, family, and clients who really don't like Vista for this or that reason. So I love the fact that I will be able to purchase mass licenses from MS to serve those people. If they choose not to deploy Windows 7 either, then I still have a few options to meet the demand of my customers.
If I had a product as stable as Windows XP is, I would sell it until Windows 184743628235 came out. Why not? If it makes the masses happy, and I make a buck....
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-...e.aspx?qprid=10
Windows Vista 20.45%
MacIntel 6.51%
Mac OS 2.35%
Windows 2000 1.56%
Linux 0.83%
Windows NT 0.77%
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-...e.aspx?qprid=10
Windows Vista 20.45%
MacIntel 6.51%
Mac OS 2.35%
Windows 2000 1.56%
Linux 0.83%
Windows NT 0.77%
We still have PPC users, and users who like to hang on to their Macs for as long as possible. People love their Macs.
Most people never upgrade their OS, they just use what came pre-installed. As computers are replaced Vista's numbers will go up, the same thing happened with XP, as I recall it took over 3 years for XP to overtake Win98SE. Vista's numbers are lower than XP at its same time because OEMs are still selling new systems with XP.
Last edited by TRC on 24 Dec 2008 - 21:19
I think it's when people bring up ridiculously inaccurate reasons that their OS (typically XP) is better than the other persons (typically Vista).
Back in the real worls, a lot of people don't want to or cannot move onto Vista. Most businesses are like this. Most people at home won't have a clue how to or why they need to update their PC. All they know is that they have their music and photos where they want them. When their PC finally gives up on them, they will buy a new one ... and then figure out that their photos and music are lost ...
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.